Should this be allowed?

[Alaskan John]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFace

I'm not privy to the details either, and I would look at it a little differently if she were the one to have asked for this. But, I just don't think that that is the case.

I really like your Liberarian values JAF (i.e. - the government that governs least governs best)! You would probably get along with most of us long-time Alaskans pretty darn well! Unfortunately in this instance, I think your suggestion sets up a classic Catch-22. If you're sane enough to know you need a conservator, then you might be too sane to convince the court that you really do! Up here the civil courts are very cautious and conservative about imposing on anyone's personal life with impositions like court-ordered conservators, guardians, involuntary hospitalizations, etc, and the request for such impositions are NEVER initiated by the court - the court must receive a petition from a concerned party and have a hearing with all parties (includng the alleged needy person or their legal representative) before it can rule. I still see a definite time and place where such impositions are appropriate, but I am grateful that our local court leans away from doing so except in the direst of circumstances. Maybe we will end up disagreeing on the details here, but I definitely like your Libertarian biases just the same!

[JustAnotherFace]

Originally Posted by Alaskan John

I really like your Liberarian values JAF (i.e. - the government that governs least governs best)! You would probably get along with most of us long-time Alaskans pretty darn well! Unfortunately in this instance, I think your suggestion sets up a classic Catch-22. If you're sane enough to know you need a conservator, then you might be too sane to convince the court that you really do! Up here the civil courts are very cautious and conservative about imposing on anyone's personal life with impositions like court-ordered conservators, guardians, involuntary hospitalizations, etc, and the request for such impositions are NEVER initiated by the court - the court must receive a petition from a concerned party and have a hearing with all parties (includng the alleged needy person or their legal representative) before it can rule. I still see a definite time and place where such impositions are appropriate, but I am grateful that our local court leans away from doing so except in the direst of circumstances. Maybe we will end up disagreeing on the details here, but I definitely like your Libertarian biases just the same!

Well thank you. And I definitely understand what you're saying about the catch-22, but the CA courts are known for their wild judgments. Though, either way, I will say you make a good point.

As a side note, I also find it interesting that (even though it's only been six people) everyone who has voted in the pole leans to one or the other extreme. No one, as of yet, has said that it should be a case by case basis.

[JustAnotherFace]

Minutes after my last post, someone choses option number 3. At least the statement was valid at the time.

[brilor]

She's just a stupid spoiled bitch who makes the headlines. The welfare of her children shoud be paramount and if she ain't an able mother then she shouldn't be trusted with them whether she has $20 or $20m.

[Romford Lad]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherFace

Minutes after my last post, someone choses option number 3. At least the statement was valid at the time.

Well JAF ~ I voted for number one, because it actually means case by case ~ number three is really an unnecessary question because if you think about it, it's already covered by number one.

Now I know we could split hairs here my friend ~ but if you were to do an opinion poll, they I would suggest that you couldn't have the two questions in the same voting box.

Only just my thoughts ~ probably wrong [as usual as my wife would say!]

[JustAnotherFace]

Originally Posted by brilor

She's just a stupid spoiled bitch who makes the headlines. The welfare of her children shoud be paramount and if she ain't an able mother then she shouldn't be trusted with them whether she has $20 or $20m.

Straight forward and to the point. Nice.

[Patrish]

It seems the courts are extending their personal opinions and or preferences yet again on Americans.

Altho i think its good her family cannot sponge off of her...
And she wont be wrecking her future all that much with the money that could end up hurting her more than she knows.

But the court system isnt set up to mandate our finances.

NOR our procreative sex lives - like the man who had several children but was forced to get sterilized.

I think the courts have only the ability to work out the crime and punishment and not come into our lives and force us to live our lives according to how they think it should be run.

Sheees.

[Mimi]

Depending on your parents, I think a mother or father would be the best person to manage your finances, if you aren't functioning at the time. Britney can't breathe without it being news, way too much pressure. It's hard enough for new / young parents. She's a grown woman but she's learning.

[Mimi]

Originally Posted by Patrish

It seems the courts are extending their personal opinions and or preferences yet again on Americans.

Where do the courts get their 'personal' opinions?

Originally Posted by Patrish

But the court system isnt set up to mandate our finances.

NOR our procreative sex lives - like the man who had several children but was forced to get sterilized.

I think the legal system is very prepared to deal with finances, or appoint someone to.

I thought it was 'God's will' that we procreate?

[hortysir]

I voted #2
I don't live in a socialist country, regardless of how much Obama would like me to.
She was just as stupid and crazy when she earned it....shouldn't matter how stupid and crazy she is to spend it.
Keep your hands out of my pockets.